1920-03-03

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of Department of Immigration and Colonization.-Hon. Mr. Calder.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Hume Cronyn for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment of the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King thereto, resumed from Tuesday, March 2.
Mr. ARTHUR TRAHAN (Nicolet), (translation): Mr. Speaker, being called upon, for the first time, to say a few words within these new parliamentary precincts, I feel it an urgent duty and a pleasant obligation to express myself in that beautiful French language which radiates among all nations for its limpidity and
which owes it to its clearness to have been chosen as the universal language of diplomacy. If, in the course of our deliberations, we happen to use the English language now and then, I pray our friends who represent the majority to believe that we do so only out of courtesy towards them and because we want our remarks to be understood by everybody. But, for the present circumstance, since we are officially inaugurating this new temple of legislation, it is proper, nay, it is necessary that every member from the Province of Quebec should express himself in his own native tongue, showing clearly, thereby, that the most efficient means of turning a right to account is to exercise the same, especially under such solemn and serious circumstances as these. That being understood, I shall now enter upon the discussion of those matters which were laid before us.
The other night, the hon. Acting Prime Minister thought it his duty to review the policy of the " tory ", unionist, imperialist government since the beginning of the war. That entitles me, it seems, to take a leaf from the book of the Acting Prime Minister and to review before this national assembly, as briefly as possible,, the policy followed during the same time by the Liberal party to which it is my privilege to belong.
In one of his works, Abbe Barthelemy states that " to love one's country is to see to it that it is formidable abroad and peaceful at home ". From that quotation, that statement, it might be inferred that there are two kinds of patriotism, that the inhabitants of a country are called upon to give various tokens of their patriotic spirit according to varying circumstances, and that a distinction might be drawn between patriotism in times of peace and patriotism in times of war.
During the last great war there were displayed in this country two different views of the duties imposed on us by wartime patriotism. When war broke out, we were certainly all of one mind in saying that this country was bound to help England and the Allies to ensure the triumph of their just cause. Differences of opinion arose as to whether we were legally, morally or in honour bound to do it; nevertheless, the capital fact remains that we were all agreed there was an obligation on our part, by whatever name it might be called. Starting from that principle, the rulers at that time, headed by Sir Robert Borden, thought that Canada should take
[Stage Direction]
part in the world-wide war from entirely imperialistic or solely military considerations, which the opposition forces based their claim upon a truly liberal notion, upon an idea which was Canadian rather than imperialistic.
These were the principles underlying the first view, that is the exclusively militarist view: The interests of the empire were to supersede those of Canada; we had to give up our last man and our last dollar and, if necessary, to lay aside our constitutional law, to rule the country through unusual Orders in Council and even to so break the Constitution as to put upon our statute books a law called the compulsory military *service Act, which is unfair, nefarious and unconstitutional. We opposed the passing of that legislation because we thought - and we still think so-the fundamental laws of this country did not allow the .Government to sanction such a principle. We opposed it because we hold - and we still hold - that Canada should only take past in the war according to her resources, and that an exclusively militarist patriotism was a dangerous error,, that is should be subjected to and guided by the purest economic patriotism.
We begged the Government to protect oui economic interests, to spend cautiously, to increase production, to do all those things in order to avoid a financial cataclysm, to prevent the Allies from starving to death. Aud we thought that by the most energetic use of our resources so as to procure food and munitions to the Allies, we would be discharging a large part of our obligations as a self-governing colony of the British empire.
Blinded by their extreme imperialism, their wild militarism,, the Government replied to every remark we made to them when there was a question of rebuilding our economic framework, of reducing the expenditure, of taking measures in order to prevent a rise in the cost of living, of obeying the Constitution and respecting the franchise and the constitutional rights of every citizen of this country - to every one of those remarks the Government replied: " The war must be won ", and they would not take the preventive measures we suggested so as to avoid the financial, economic, moral and political cataclysm which now overwhelms our country.
They not only turned a deaf ear to our representation, but they thought fit to insult, to despise and to slander us. During the elections of 1917, which were won through 
numerous fraudulent practices made possible by the Military Voters Act, through the disfranchisement of a large number of British citizens by that unfair, or rather infernal law named the War-time Elections Act, a campaign of prejudices was especially directed against the inhabitants of the province of Quebec. We were being branded as deserters, cowards, slackers, because we advocated as a minimum of satisfaction, a referendum on conscription.
The present situation through which Canada is passing, the financial unrest with which the country is seething, the labour disturbances we witness with tearful eyes, the radical change which has taken place in the feelings of our population, as a result of the anti-Canadian policy carried out by the torydmperialist-un'ionist Parliament, warrant, to my mind, the decided stand we have taken from the very outbreak of the war, and which we have maintained during the prosecution of the war.
How the times have changed? In 1917, we were cowards and traitors. To-day, the Province of Quebec is the best balanced of the provinces of Canada; it is the pivotal province from different viewpoints, such as the maintenant of social order and peace, labour and production. We are being flattered, complimented; in short we are the best fellows in the world. In this connection, let me quote an extract from an editorial that appeared in the columns of The Farmers' Sun on February 11, 1920. This is the headline of this article:
Quebec then and now.
It is funny to hear the big interests making love to Quebec. No Bolshevism there. No Demagogues preaching sedition. No labour agitation. A contented, hardworking, thrifty people. A safe and sane province, where you may invest your money at seven per oent, in privately owned concerns, unmolested by Government ownership. The finest province of Canada, and a glorious example to the turbulent West, with its organized farmers and labour men.
It is for the French Canadian to laugh, perhaps rather bitterly. Only two years ago they were being denounced as slackers and traitors. The whole province was boiling with sedition. The sturdy men of Ontario ought to go down to Quebec and clear the French Canadians out. They were priest-ridden. They were anti-British. "Shall Quebec rule?" was the war cry.
And now these fire-eaters are down on their marrow-hones, offering incense to Quebec. Why? Have the French Canadians changed their character? We have seen no evidence of it. The secret is that their votes are wanted for high protection and the big interests. "Come back" cries the agonized father, "and all will be forgiven." No; even that does not quite describe it. "'Come foaick and we will beg

your forgiveness for all the hard things we said in 1917. Instead of albuse we will give you flattery. Instead of charging you with sedition we (will give you a certificate of character as 'bulwarks of defence against Bolshevism. Only stand by the sacred tariff and the big interests and the big profits, and we will exalt Quebec above Ontario as the premier province of Canada."
As we say, if is for Quebec to laugh. But what opinion must French Canadians hold of those who have passed from violent abuse to flattery based upon selfishness?
In this editorial, sir, there is to be found a certain amount of truth, but not the whole truth. Allow me to supply the deficiencies. The French-Canadians were not the only ones who were insulted, branded as disloyal men, traitors, deserters, during the prosecution of the great war. I remember that the farmers of the English-speaking provinces who were opposed to conscription, or at least to its being enforced in their midst, as energetically as we Liberals of Quebec, were opposed to it, were also branded by these gentlemen of the Unionist party as a band of traitors, disloyal citizens, slackers and deserters. It is no doubt within your recollection, Sir, that, during the elections of 1917, as stated by the ' Farmers' Sun" that the elections in the English-speaking provinces were carried on and (fought on the back of the province of Quebec and of the French-Canadians. As the farmers of the English-speaking provinces felt reluctant to conscription and were by no means favourable to it, an election dodge was resorted to and that famous order in council was passed, supplemented by the decision of Judge Duff in the case of Rowntree, to the effect that farmers should not be called to the colours, but on the contrary, should be exempted; because, as they said, national interest, the interest of the empire required an increase of production and farmers only could produce food for the Allies. Then, after dispelling the fear experienced by the farmers of the Englishspeaking provinces of being conscripted, they were told: "No popery! no French domination! no Quebec rule! and the election was carried. Six months later, the same national interest under which the farmers in general were exempted, required of the Government, as stated by the Prime Minister, Mr. Borden, that the exemptions be cancelled in the case of young men from twenty to twenty-three years old and that the sons of farmers be conscripted.
This was the occasion of a general protest voiced by the farmers of the English provinces, and we witnessed in Ottawa that monstrous delegation of Ontario farmers at the head of which was the new member
from North Ontario (Robert H. Halbert) as chairman of the Ontario United Farmers, and the new Minister of Agriculture in the Ontario government, Mr. Manning Doherty. They came here to ask the government to fulfil their promise, to exempt the farmers' sons. You know how they were received. They were politely turned away by the Unionist government of the day under the leadership of Mr. Borden, with among its members the honourable member for Marquette (Mr. T. A. Crerar), then Minister of Agriculture.
Moreover, the order in council contained a proviso by which it was to be submitted to the House of Commons for its ratification. Three votes were taken on that question at the session of 1918. A motion was made by my honourable friend for Proven-cher (Mr. J. P. Molloy) to the effect that the said order in council cancelling the exemptions should not apply to the farmers. What was the result? All the Tory-Unionist-Imperialist members voted against that motion, and among the Tory-Unionist representatives was the hon. member for Marquette, the then Minister of Agriculture (Mr. T. A. Crerar), the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. T. MacNutt), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Levi Thomson), and all the so called upholders of the interests of the agricultural class in this House and in the country at large.
I am, Sir, a steady reader of the "Farmers' Sun" since its foundation and, previously, I used to read the "Weekly Sun" which has been succeeded by the "Farmers' Sun". Following that rebuff, the new member for North Ontario, accompanied by Mr. Burnaby and Mr. Manning Doherty, travelled all over the province of Ontario, saying that the Unionist government who had among their members the honourable member for Marquette, who had among their supporters the honourable members for Red Deer, Saltcoats and Qu'Appelle and all the other unionists who are to-day the so called farmers, were treacherous to the farmers, etc., because they had cancelled the exemptions for the young men of 20 to 23 years old and had refused to exempt the farmers.
Either the honourable member for North Ontario was a humbug when he came here at the head of the farmers' delegation and was holding meetings to protest; either he is a humbug to-day in accepting as his leader the honourable member for Marquette who was the then Minister of Agri-
[Stage Direction]
culture, and in accepting also to sit as a member of the same party with all those old unionist members who do not agree with him upon such a vital matter as the Military Service Act.
It can be asserted that if there ever were oppressors of the agricultural class, the Unionist government should be mentioned, as also the honourable member for Marquette, then Minister of Agriculture, as also the honourable members for Red Deer, Saltcoats and Qu'Appelle.
But, Sir, all of those Unionist members, now farmers, including the honourable member for Marquette, have insulted us in 1917 the same as the others; they have insulted Quebec in 1917, just as the others did and to-day they are also dancing attendance on us. The big interests mentioned by the "Farmers' Sun" are not the only ones doing so. Those so-called defenders of the agricultural class of the Western provinces who joined the big interests in 1917 to heap insults on us are now paying their court to us, and why? Because they are anxious that we, belonging of the Liberal party should join hands with them on a question of economies, on a question of free trade. The insults of 1917 did not move us; neither are we moved by the present time fawning, wherever it comes from.
Yesterday afternoon the honourable member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) answering the honourable member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) who had suggested a provincial conference in order to try the settlement of the racial difficulties, said: "Quebec is not ready to discuss just now; it is biding its time." Then the honourable member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), in his peculiar bombastic manner, asked the representative for St. Hyacinthe if his statement was a threat, and the honourable member for St. Hyacinthe answered, very truly indeed, that it was nothing but a declaration of principle.
We do not see our way, Sir, to discuss with people who want conference without stating the why and the wherefore of such conference.
Is the honourable member for Parkdale going to come, as suggested by the "Farmers' Sun," and beg the pardon of the member for St. Hyacinthe for having called his countrymen traitors and disloyal? Is the honourable member for Peterborough going to beg the pardon of the electors and the members of the province of Quebec, in that conference, for having said that the citizens, of the province of Quebec were slackers? Would perchance the honourable

member for Red Deer, if he were at this conference, come and beg pardon for having voted for the cancelling of the exemption of the young men of twenty to twenty three years of age? Would perchance the honourable member for Marquette, a minister in the Unionist government, come to this conference and beg our pardon, of us of the province of Quebec, and also perhaps that of the Ontario farmers for having as a minister, refused to exempt the farmers' sons, when six months before, as a member of the' Government, he had passed an order in council exempting them? This proposal of a conference has no ground to stand on.
There is no need for discussion at this time. The position we have taken, we took before the country and we will continue to hold it until the Government, who cling to . power like grim death, shall give us an opportunity of going back to the electors, as is asked by the leader of the Opposition in his motion of amendement.
The honourable member for St. Hyacinthe did not make an appeal for retallia-tion. He expressed our feelings, the unanimous sentiment of the whole province of Quebec. For our high-mindedness, our self respect revolt at the sight of such fawning from people of the West and Ontario. Such interested flattery is indulged in with the object of dividing us in order that they may better control and persecute us.
We have always been tolerant. In the province of Quebec, justice is done to whom justice is due; we do not do to others what we do not want others to do to us. Our tolerance is not one of opportunism, as that of the jingoes, the tories, unionists and imperialists of Ontario, nor that of the so-called defenders of the agricultural class in the country. Our tolerance is not a matter of opportunism, it is immutable. It has its roots in our liberalism; it has been taught to us by that great patriot Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, as every one acknowledges today, spent his life preaching the union of the races, concord and harmony between them; and not preaching the amalgamation or assimilation of them.
If his appeals have not been heard; if today we are threatened with social warfare, with a war of races, with a war of religions, a war of classes, the responsibility is on the heads not only of the Unionist government, but of the members for Marquette, for Red Deer, for Saltcoats, for Qu'Appelle, on all the Unionist members and on all the self-called defenders of the agricultural class,- excepting the four newly elected of this year-who have united to break the given word, to forswear their most solemn engage-

ments towards the farmers of the country, to kindle the fire of passions and prejudices against a race, against a province which has always done its duty towards the Dominion, and which gives to-day to the other provinces of Canada the example of work, of moderation, of tolerance, as is admitted by all the newspapers supporting the Unionist government and the so-called Farmers' party.
In 1918, in the month of November, the armistice was signed, and in the course of the first session of 1919 was brought down the Covenant of the League of Nations. In this document It is said that the principal object in view in the formation of the League of Nations was to prevent future wars, and to that effect to reduce armaments. It was, no doubt, in order to reduce armaments and decrease military expenditure, that the Government caused to be presented during the same session, a Bill the object of which was to double the peace time military force of Canada and to raise it from 5,000 to 10,000 men. It meant a considerable increase of the military effectives, and of the military expenditure. The Opposition fought that Bill. We claimed that the war had been a war against war, and that if the Allies in their triumph had adopted the principle of the League of Nations, it was to the end of reducing armaments and military expenditures. A vote was taken. The whole Opposition voted against the increase of out forces and of our military expenditures; but again, the member for Marquette, the member for Red Deer and the other so-called defenders of the interests of the agricultural class in the country, either voted for such increase or abstained from voting.
The Peace Treaty was signed in June 1919 and the Government, probably in their desire to maintain their majority, called a special session of Parliament for the purpose of ratifying the Treaty. Then what happened? There were differences of opinion upon the future obligations of this country, as regards the interpretation of article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. W. S. Fielding) in accord with the Liberal views, introduced an amendment providing for a reservation-an essential one, in my opinion - to the motion for which we were asked to vote in connection with the ratification of the Treaty. The reservation was asking that the Canadian Parliament be the only one to determine what should be our future obligations and whether we should take part in any future war and to
what extent. The Liberal Opposition gave a solid vote in favour of that reservation which was essential, and again on that occasion the so-called friends of the farmers, the hon. member for Marquette and others, voted to have Canada tied hand and foot through the obligations imposed by Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations, without Parliament being consulted or the people having the privilege and the right to voice their opinion through their representatives.
I remember very well that during the session of 1919, we noticed the extended absence of the hon. member for Red Deer, who, a few days later,, came to the House to teach the Opposition a lesson of diligence. It shows the interest hon. gentlemen were taking in the affairs of the country and in the welfare of the great agricultural community.
As regards the question of autonomy, 1 wish to put on Hansard the following resolution, dealing with the subject, which was adopted at the Liberal convention, held in August 1919.
Resolved that we strongly oppose any centralization of imperial control and that no organic change in the Canadian constitution as regards the relations of Canada to the Empire, be carried out, after its adoption by Parliament, without toeing ratified by the people by means of a referendum.
That is true democracy and the best means to assure peace in this country. There is talk of a future imperial Conference to be held in the course of this year or next year. The policy of the Liberal party is that none of the decisions which may be made by the Conference shall be carried out unless they are approved by Parliament and afterwards ratified by the people by means of a plebiscite. This policy which we are supporting, calls for the fullest measure of autonomy and we shall support it to the end.
The speech from the Throne has much more to say about external affairs than of home or -Canada issues. Why? Because the Government who are conducting the affairs of this country are still imbued with the same imperialistic ideas as before the war. As I reminded the House a moment ago, they doubled the military forces. We opposed the measure. General * Arthur Currie,, in addressing the Canadian Mining Institute in Vancouver, claimed that if we wanted to remain within the British Empire,' we must be ready to do our share, and should the occasion arise, to send at least 6 or 7 divisions to take part in future wars,
[Stage Direction]
failing which we would have to leave the Empire. That is what you would call military imperialism on land. It is an express denial of the provisions of the Covenant of the Teague of Nations to which our representatives contributed in London and which provides for the reduction of armaments and the annihilation of militarism. As far as we are concerned we are against the plan suggested by General Currie.
Then there is the amazing member for Parkdale, who, in his speeches in Toronto and elsewhere, advocates compulsory military training. That was rejected in United States and we are opposed to it, because we believe it would have no good effect in Canada. This does not mean the elimination of physical training in our schools, but we do not want any military training. There is a big difference between the two.
We are also threatened with imperialism on the seas, namely with a new naval policy.
Admiral Lord Jellicoe came to visit this country and malicious persons say that he took our sickly Prime Minister away with him for the purpose of persuading the people of South Africa to adopt a new naval policy. However the trip was cancelled, because the people of South Africa, who are possessed of a keen sense of national pride, would not be governed either by a foreign Prime Minister-even from Canada-or by an admiral of the British Fleet.
That naval policy is imperialistic in its nature; it means military imperialism both on land and on the seas, and its plans involve considerable expenditure. We oppose them for a good many reasons. It is not absurd to suggest an increase in the public expenditure at a time when the country is on the verge of bankruptcy and social revolution, and when we are not in a position to meet our obligations, compelled as we are to carry on by means of loans which are renewed from year to year. This reason is sufficient in itself. Again I submit that this naval policy is an absurdity under the present circumstances and the Government would do well to abandon their project rather than playing into the hands of the English imperialists and of the profiteers who are interested in the shipbuilding industry.
As to the question of economic imperialism, the House will allow me to defer my observations on that subject until the discussion of the Budget.
Canada fought four years to secure peace. Do we enjoy that peace which we were long-
[Mr. Tniha.n. 1
ing for? What is the policy adopted by the Government to secure and preserve a real peace which is so essential to the progress and to the mental, moral and material prosperity of our dear country? Was it based upon the eternal principles of liberty, justice and charity like any social policy ought to be? Not at all. The Governmeent, in framing their policy, were the slaves of " plutocratic barbarism" and "socialistic barbarism," which are friends and foes at the same time and, though they seem to fight against one another, agree very well to exploit the consumers and to increase the cost of living. The Government have been constantly and faithfully feeding these two kinds of barbarism. They kept in the wake of the "Profiteers" and the "rioters," to use the forceful expression of Maurras of the Action Fran5ai.se.
In the first place, let us take the tax exemption on Victory bonds which was taken off only last year. That exemption was intended to benefit the big capitalists at the expense of the great labouring and agricultural masses, of those who toil and suffer. The same capitalists who exacted from the workers and farmers the sacrifice of their lives were the first to fail in their duty, as far as financial aid to the country was concerned. They were the first to beg the Government to exempt them from paying their share of the war expenses. The result of that nefarious policy is that every year there is about fifteen hundred million dollars' worth of incomes which escape taxation. The Liberal party had to fight for two years before we succeeded in having that crying injustice removed. Therefore, I was right in stating, at least as far as that is concerned, that the Government were the slaves of the profiteers of this country.
At the last session, which was supposed to have been called for the sole purpose of ratifying the Peace Treaty-as intimated in the speech from the Throne-the Government introduced in the dying days of that session and quite unexpectedly, a considerable Bill for the purchase of the Grand Trunk railway. We opposed that Bill very strongly, for the following reasons which we gave out at the time: The Bill is to benefit the English investors, i.e., the capitalists, at the expense of the Canadian ratepayers, and will cost this country hundreds of millions. According to the statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, we are assuming obligations which amounted to $707,929,817 in 1918, besides what we shall have to pay for the common and preferential stock of the company. It increases our debt

which is already well above our means, specially if the present Government continues to support the profiteers, regardless of our national resources, which, I am glad to say, are inexhaustible.
That policy will also result in the increasing of our annual deficits, notwithstanding the fact that every year, when the time comes to discuss the Budget, we hear hon. members on the opposite side of the House and the members of the Government say:	" Where shall we take the money,
where will it come from?"
And these hon. gentlemen, who are always .at a loss how to make both ends meet, that expenses and income may balance each other, are in a great hurry to saddle the .country with a new undertaking which is bound, from the Government's own admission, to pile up yearly deficits.
Another ground on which we opposed that policy is that it was a further step towards nationalization of public services or State ownership, a socialist principle of German origin which 'has resulted in destroying .competency, responsibilities and any sense of personal interest in administration and in encouraging extravagance.
To quote Sir Herbert Samuel, in .any public undertaking socialized or nationalized, cither the charges are fixed at a rate exceeding the cost price, and then it is an invisible tax, which is levied on every consumer, and at the same time the most burdensome tax, inasmuch as it is borne by ways of communication, by systems of freight and passenger transportation, or else they fall below the cost price, and in that case they are an invisible subsidy. This outright nationalization of public services has proved a dismal failure in the United States, and no later than March 1 last, after a Bill had been passed by Congress and Senate, the railway companies were handed over fo their private owners, while all State control came to an end. The State ownership principle is strongly opposed by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Lloyd .George, at least as far as the nationalization of mines is concerned, and that great patriot, Mr. Asquith, .at his recent election at Paisley, the issue of which contest was a signal victory for him, emphatically condemned State ownership and more particularly the nationalization of coal mines.
Even in France, where are to be found [DOT]State-operated railway companies and other railways operated by private companies, a recent experience shows that the ratio of losses on operating expenditures as
compared with earnings, was higher with State-owned companies than with those under private ownership. This goes to show that when a public interest railway is operated by the State, there is waste and- extravagance and inefficiency. Nowadays in France, Socialists, .who are the outstanding exponents of State ownership, are becoming somewhat lukewarm in advocating this system, and Mr. Millerand, the new Prime Minister of France, who is a Socialist leader, made, on January 22, 1920, before the House of Representatives, the following statement:
The condition of its budgets now forbids the State, regardless of our doctrinal pred'ilictions, exclusively to assume outlay on larger public works indlispensable to the development of national wealth.
The development of such works is to be secured through a formula which renders the (State, controller and part benefit-sharer, a partner witih the interested' collectivities and private initiative, which to larger extent than ever must .be fostered and' encouraged.
What follows from such a statement, Sir? Thait even in countries with an advanced school of thought, the conclusion reached, from experience, is that it is better to encourage private initiative than to nationalize .public services, the more so at a time when currency is depreciated and public (finances are so crippled and strained almost to the breaking point.
Were I allowed to put on record my own (views in this connection, I should suggest that the Government accept as a basis of its policy in railway matters the principles eet .forth in a work entitled: "L'Avenir de la France"-The Future of France:
Legislators, says the author, should, not aim [DOT]at framing a programme squaring with political formulas, but should, endeavour to obtain maximum yields ; the .State should visualize commercial results. The operating earnings and [DOT]their consequences so far *as the increase of collective well-being and national wealth is concerned, ought to warrant the State in controlling private initiative. Therefore, we do not coincide in the views held by certain political men who want the .State forcibly to proceed to the repurchase of railway companies. Quite the contrary, an extension of charters is the system which seems to 'be required, against a rental paid by the companies to the State, under the obligation for the former to improve their systems, their operating methods, and possibly by .imposing benefit-sharing for the future.
Such is the principle which, in my opinion, should be adopted.
Another fact which shows the trend of opinion among members of Union Government towards socialism is the principle acted on in the classification of the Civil Service: same work, same salary. It is a socialist doctrine which ignores the fact that
[Stage Direction]
qualification for work and co-ordination being quite different in men, the earning power is of necessity different in each individual. Moreover, that method tends to abolish initiative, to encourage routine work and to create an injustice toward those who are better qualified and who, on account of their ability, are producing the most. In fact, the work becomes purely material instead of intellectual. Instead of following the principles as set out in the labour clauses of the Peace Treaty, instead of treating men as human beings and of proportioning their reward to the efforts produced by their intelligence, which is the first and main factor of all our actions, they regard them as mere machines by giving them, a uniform status. They say: " For the same kind of work you shall receive the same amount of remuneration, regardless of your qualifications, technical knowledge or special studies." That is the socialist principle which has been introduced in the legislation of this country by the present Government.
We are complaining of the people deserting the land. They say the farms are idle, that agriculture has divorced from modern life and that the young people are leaving the country to go and live in the cities where they .become intoxicated with various poisons. There undoubtedly exists a social plague, a moral disease which nobody can deny; it is evidenced by the census figures. What did the Government do to remedy that situation? All they did during the war was f to enlist the farmers and their sons, with the support of the hon. members for Marquette and Red Deer, and to let the munition workers earn large wages in their manufactures. That is what happened. The Government saw to it that the farmers sacrificed their lives, being supported in that policy by the members for Marquette and Red Deer and all the so-called defenders of the agricultural class, but they did not exact the same sacrifice from the workingmen. They said to the farmers: "You shall go to the trenches and earn $1.10 a day," and to the workingmen: "Go to the cities, enjoy all the advantages and earn remarkably big wages, much bigger than you ever earned before." That is one of the principal causes of the desertion of the land, namely the adoption by the Government of a shameful and unjust policy for two different classes of the community.
They made city life one of comfort, and they intend to make it still more comfortable. How will they do it? The hon.

President of the Privy Council went to Washington, where he fought with indomitable energy in favour of the adoption of the principle of the eight-hour day. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that there is a universal law which is as old as the world itself and which provides for the increasing of national wealth, the intensification of production and the reduction of the burden of national indebtedness. We shall have the very opposite result if we adopt the principle of the eight-hour day, and there will be a much greater discrimination against the agricultural workers. No wonder the latter are going to the cities. '
Mr. Speaker, if, as unanimously proclaimed, we are enjoying in the province of Quebec to-day greater prosperity than the other provinces, if we have peace, order and harmony, it is because our people have been used by the teachings of the school and the church, to practise the great and eternal laws of work and sacrifice. It is because the people on our farms are not afraid to work effectively to reap from the fertile soil of the province of Quebec its maximum of production. It is because the workers in our cities do not hesitate to follow the teachings of the most competent religious authorities which command them to respect the rights of their fellow-citizens and to fulfil their civic duties properly.
That may be considered as a somewhat doctrinal and religious argument; but, no matter, I agree with those who assert that you must not worship God at home and then forswear Him in public. I contend that a man in public life who is thoughtful of his responsibilities, must adopt the same course in Parliament, on the hustings and in private life, always and everywhere.
We are suffering from another social disease: Luxury. To-day, nobody wants to work; they all wish to enjoy the pleasures of life, and they are all anxious to become rich. The president of Queen's University of Kingston, in an address which he delivered recently, said that the people of Canada were sinking into materialism and that you could hear of nothing else but money, and money all the time.
If we want to carry out this work of social and Christian regeneration of our country, we must discard that materialism.
There appeared in the columns of a Quebec newspaper, on February 16, of this year a striking article, under this heading:
There will be improvement all round when . . in these times of stress when the shrewdest minds are despairing of the future of the country, good sense is here to set our minds at

rest, on condition that we do its bidding. And do you know what good sense would tell us, were it questioned as to how the alarming situation of the present times could be remedied? Good sense would tell us that things in general will improve :
When there will be more alarm clocks in our homes than jewellery;
When there will be more flannel petticoats than silken skirts ;
When there will be found at home more slippers than fancy shoes;
When there will be more smock frocks or over-alls than fancy dresses;
When there will he more aprons and fewer decolletes;
When there will be fewer people in shops and more tillers of the soil on the farms ;
When less time will be devoted to moving pictures and theatres and a little more to work at home;
When " more cows " will be kept on the farm, and there will he fewer pianos in our homes, as remarked one day by Dr. Grignon, an agricultural lecturer ;
When there will be a larger number of producers than of consumers;
When people will learn how to bend their energies toward their task, and will entertain a lesser dread of labour;
When people will devote more attention to making deposits in savings banks, instead of squandering their money on trifles.
When people will be able and willing to make sacrifices and deprive themselves, instead of indulging in extravagant expenditures;
When they will realize that idleness is the mother of poverty, and work the parent of wealth;
When they will pause to ponder that this racing towards the abyss has but one issue, at the end of the trail, that is the abyss itself;
When people will set about acting on the principles of Christianity, and a little less over the principles of paganism.
When classes will have a clearer notion of solidarity and social duty.
Mr. Speaker, weie those suggestions lived up to, I am convinced that many difficulties we have to grapple with to-day would be bridged over and settled; I have not the least doubt that this seething unrest would soon be on the wane; that every one would faithfully discharge his every day duties and work not only in his own interest, but also in the general interest of the country.
The hon. member for Parkdale told us yesterday, with his wonted flow of words: " I was astounded, when I joined the Unionist party, to meet there so many radicals; it is remarkable how many men with extreme ideas are to be found in that party." May I be allowed to refer for a moment to the etymological definition given by a French journalist of the word radical. Radical, says he, is derived from the word " radis " (radish) which means red outwardly, white internally and it is always found near the butter plate. The hon. gentleman is an enthusiast, a proud man,
easily stirred up, who is flushed with joy to-day at being a member of the Unionist party and at being indebted for his election to the insults and slanderous attacks levelled at a sane and honest population. But it is white in the interior that is to say, a whited sepulchre, when he comes down and hypocritically suggests as he did yesterday, that we enter into conferences, without telling us what we are to confer about. Moreover his supreme ambition is to remain as near the butter plate as possible, to support the Government to prevent elections being held, as he is aware that the Government would be defeated, and that is why he feels himself at home and so comfortable in the Unionist party. .
We do not want to have anything to do with that radicalism I have just referred to. We spurn those empyric methods, because we abhor materialism. On this side of the House, we are content with subscribing to and acting upon the principles of that pure liberalism we are wedded to, namely, science, honesty, charity, toleration, elevation of thought, justice and faith in the destinies of Canada. We put into practice those eternal laws, love of work and of sacrifice; we are proud and happy to proclaim that we, members of this House, from the province of Quebec, belong to a re-ligous people, and we are not afraid to affirm that a business policy, willing or unwilling, rests upon a religious principle, and not on the worship of the God-state of ancient Rome or of Germany.
Fault is found with us for submitting this amendment to the House and contending that the time is opportune for an election. " Why, you are not in earnest, you know that you have no chance of being returned, and that you shall be beaten at the polls." Let the right hon. Prime Minister allow me to tell him that this is no answer. The question is not whether the Liberal party will be defeated at the next elections, but whether democratic principles and responsible Government are to be upheld or to win the day.
Clemenceau during the war, used to say, just like this Government:	" Je fais la
guerre "-" I am waging war."
When a successor to that gentleman was to be elected, the French parliamentarians said:
" This will be a peace government and the man who presided over the course of the war may not be qualified to direct the peace government." And they elected another man, M. Deschanel, as president of
[Stage Direction]
the republic. It is the same as regards our country. We say: We have had a war government, but peace has come, war conditions have ceased to exist for a year. We should have a peace government now and it is for the people to choose the members of the government which will have to administer the public business in time of peace.
They say: "Why, you will be defeated." And what of it. It is not success that matters, but our duty. We do not seek for honour nor profits; we stand up, not for private interests but for public interest and we aim to build in Canada a nation where greatness shall be based on justice and kindness, on work and social peace, on liberty and sacrifice.
Mr. WILLIAM FOSTER COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, this new Chamber has already listened to several very excellent speeches. If the doings of our Parliament, the legislation that we pass and the addresses that we make in this Chamber are to be equal to our surroundings, we shall have to go some in order to attain such excellence as our surroundings indicate we are at present in possession of. 1 desire to congratulate the architect and those who have been associated with him on the spendid result of their work as I think this legislative assembly chamber will compare very favourably with any others in the principal capitals of the world. I have visited quite a number of them, and I have seen very few that are equal in grace and durability to the splendid Chamber in which we are assembled to-day. I trust the future of Canada may justify the expenditure of the present, in legislating in such a wise and wholesome way for our people as will bring the same excellence to bear in all parts of Canada. The mover and the seconder of the Address have given us excellent speeches, and it is not necessary that I should allude to them more than in a passing way. They have already received many encomiums from other hon. members who have spoken.
One of the principal subjects, however, mentioned in the speech from the Throne has not, up to the present, received that consideration and attention that, in my opinion, is justified. The larger part of the speech from the Throne is taken up with allusions to the Peace Treaty, which is supposed to bring to an end the greatest war of all the ages and to proclaim peace and future happiness to the world. The war was a deadly affair; but the Peace Treaty I think is, in many respects, a bigger 
disaster than the war. It is now about eighteen months since the Armistice was signed, and during that period the Peace Treaty has been before the various parliaments and legislative assemblies of the nations that were concerned. Up to the present time I have seen no proclamation from any of the great nations that would lead us to believe that conditions of peace have yet been reached, while we know, in the neighbouring country to the south, the attitude of the legislators and of those high in authority towards the Peace Treaty is lamentable in the extreme and is causing and will continue to cause unrest until these matters are finally settled between the great combatant nations of the world. I have been watching fairly closely the doings in the United States capitol with regard to the Peace Treaty and the discussions thereon. I have alluded to this matter already on two previous occasions. I know that I am singular in that respect, as I have heard no one else express the same view; but I have said from the start and I say so again that, in my judgment, it was a great mistake to unite the League of Nations and the Peace Treaty in one document. The plenipotentiaries who were sent to the Peace Conference were charged with making peace with the nations with whom we have been at war. That was their first and main duty so far as I can understand it, and to endeavour to wipe away war for all time and to raise idealistic pillars throughout the world was something that could have been taken hold of later on. Whether the League of Nations, which is really an ideal, and is another term for the balance of power, is finally successful or not, there was no good reason why the matter of dealing with the League of Nations should not have been left until the Treaty of Peace had been fully signed, sealed and delivered. I may be, as I say, singular in that respect, but as the unrest in Canada and in all other countries of the world is one of the most serious subjects with which we have to deal, everything that tends to increase this unrest or to continue it should be removed, and by the bringing to an end of these negotiations and the signing of this Peace Treaty letting the world know that the hatchet is buried and buried for all time, or at least until another war is declared, we would wipe away a good deal of the unrest that at present prevails. In order to show that I am not taking an extreme view in speaking of the Peace Treaty as I have done, I will read a few words only from a review published in London which I have read in this House

on more than one occasion. The date of the review from which I am about to read is February, 1920. There is a good deal of this which I shall not read, but I will read this so that hon. members may see a portion of British opinion goes quite as far in that direction as anything that I am able to say:
The Tiger-
Referring to Clemenceau, the former great French Premier, who was one of the greatest and most outstanding figures in the war and in the peace negotiations; and if we have arrived at a sound basis, he has had more to do with it than any other one man not even excepting our own Lloyd George.
The Tiger at large, hacked as he would have been by an irresistible public opinion on both sides of the channel, could have achieved much, and even had President Wilson gone home in the "George Washington" and the conference broken up, we cannot see that the world would have been any worse off than it is to-day under the ratification of a Peace Treaty which, in trying to settle everything, failed to settle anything, and in the hope of ending all war has not even made a certainty of ending the only war that concerned it, while it opens up limitless vistas of future and hitherto undreamt of conflicts of which no man can foresee the end. The tragedy of the Peace is worse than any tragedy of the war. As some cynic has observed, the foundations have been laid of many a just and durable war.
Those are the remarks made in a magazine published on the other side. The article goes on to say, and this, I think, is also worthy of notice:
Yet another blunder was made in the drafting of the Franeo-British Treaty by the insertion of the unfortunate proviso that it "will only come into force" on the ratification of the Franco-American Treaty.
So that until the United States is pleased to make a treaty with France, the British and the French treaties must he held in abeyance until that is brought to pass, which certainly does not appear likely before another presidential election for which the present treaty is going to furnish great material.


Mr. FIELDING:: What is the name of
the magazine?


William Foster Cockshutt: The National Review.
The final blunder was the omission of Italy, who, now that she g^ets strategic security on land and at sea, could have no objection to joining in buttressing peace in the West. The policy of "deconsidering" Italy was carried so faT in Paris under American auspices that this may have been another manifestation of the same spirit. Now that U.S.A. has withdrawn
info her shell, we Europeans may perhaps be allowed to put our own house in order without outside interference. Our first duty is to consolidate the Entente.
I shall not read further; but the article is a long one going on to show that in resting on President Wilson to guide the destinies of the world, we have depended more or less upon a broken reed, and that he, going as the representative of and assuming to represent the whole of the Amerioan people, has failed to carry his people with him.
While Britain and France were misled to a considerable extent and believed he could deliver the goods that he claimed to have, they have now awakened to a great disappointment, and the Peace Treaty after eighteen months is more up in the air today in many respects than when it was first written. Canada, Gieat Britain, and all the countries of the world are in a state of great unrest because we are all waiting for our brethren to the south to set their pen to the Treaty, to which it appears they are going to add a very large number of reservations. I shall not criticize any body, but I do think that some of the representatives of Great Britain and the Dominions should have known, and I believe they did know, that the American constitution contained a clause to the effect that all peace treaties and all declarations of war by America are subject to a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Knowing that, and believing # that the Senate would stand behind the constitution as it had done for more than a hundred years, was it reasonable to suppose that unless President Wilson had with him some guarantee or some representation from the Senate that would warrant him in speaking for the American people, he would be able to deliver to the European people all that he claimed to be able to deliver? It is clear that he has not delivered the goods, and he is not likely to, and the result is that the Peace Treaty is up in the air, and Canada and all the nations of Europe will remain in a state of chaos until the United States holds another presidential election. That is a lamentable state of affairs, and though our Government can do little to remedy it. I think we have a right to tell our brethren to the south that while they must fight out their own political differences, they should not impose upon the nations of the world a chaos that might be removed to a very large extent if they went ahead and did their duty which they have pledged themselves to the world to



do. The unrest will never be settled until something of this kind is done, and a peace treaty drawn up in which all can unite.
My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a speech that was excellent in many respects. I am going to read a few words of his with a degree of approbation, but I reserve to myself the right of criticism which I expect to exercise a little later on for some other things he said which do not quite gibe with the declaration he made in his speech. Continuing for a moment on the subject of the unrest that prevails in Canada to-day. to my mind it is one of the most, if not the most serious question with which this House has to reckon. Thinking men not only in Canada but in all countries of the world have said that the year 1919 was the most dangerous one for civilization through which the world has ever passed. I believe that is true. We were in danger during the war; in fact, -we were in danger of losing the war at one time, but never were we in as great a danger as we have been in since the Armistice was signed. What was the cause of that? An unrest, deep-seated, that cannot easily be removed. The words of the leader of the Opposition, to which I alluded a moment ago and which I will now read, are found on page 27 of Hansard:
The war has also destroyed, as my hon. friend from London has said, much that is sacred and venerable in all our institutions, religious, political, and of every other nature. That indeed has been one of the most serious of all the effects of the war and to a very large extent accounts for the great unrest that exists in the world to-day. Men have faltered in faith where before they stood firm. Their faith in government is shaken, and in religion, and even in themselves. What we speak of to-day as Bolshevism had its growth in a country where they have had not so much in the way of religious and governmental institutions to cling to. Wherever that has been the case, there the world has suffered the most. What is needed to-day to bring about a change in conditions is a restoration to the faith that has been weakened, faith in an overruling Providence, faith in our political institutions, faith on the part of men and women in themselves.
Except for the first few words, which attribute all these disasters to the war, I heartily agree with those sentiments. My hon. friend, however, has laid a burden upon the war which should not be laid upon it, and I shall deal with that phase a little later on. For the moment, I desire to take as a text the foundation that lias been given to me by my hon. friend, and I give him credit for giving utterance to one of the finest thoughts that has been ex-

pressed during this debate. In my judgment the unrest, the wrongs, and the violence that threatens Canada are so deep-seated that they cannot be reached by any legislation. You may overthrow Governments and destroy constitutions; you may upset civil and religious order and liberty, but have you got anything to take their place, which will give to mankind that for the lack of which they are now suffering? I say not. We have had an election in Ontario and the Government has been changed, but has that settled the unrest? I shall deal with that election a little later on. One of the most encouraging signs that I see to-day is the splendid Forward Movement. that has been inaugurated by the Christian churches of Canada for a return to the old paths and for living again the life that we as a Christian nation have said in our churches every Sabbath day we believed in, but which we are not living up to. At the risk of being accused of sermonizing, I say I believe the unrest in Canada to-day is due to the fact that we have slipped from our moorings and have drifted from the old paths. The old foundation stones of civil and religious liberty that were laid by our forefathers in Canada, the exaltation of the Almighty and of His cause and His church, have been responsible to a very large extent for the splendid institutions under which we have lived for the past hundred years. When we enter the church to-day, and see the empty pews, and the old sound doctrine of the Word of God and the teachings of His Book discarded, we know one reason at least why the people are not easy to govern to-day, and why they have drifted away from the old sheet anchor that has stood the test of two thousand years, and will continue to stand the test if we will but recognize our duty, believe in God, and do the right. The Forward Movement has been inaugurated with a view to bringing us hack to the old truths and the old paths, and I think my hon. friend had that in his mind when he made the remarks I have read. I have stated what I believe to be one of the most fundamental causes of the unrest in Canada to-day. It is all very well to ask, why does not your Government do this, or why did not your Government do that, or why did it not do the other thing; but no matter what Government is in power, no matter what legislation you enact, * or how heaven-born your statesmen may be, they could not touch all the grounds of unrest in the Dominion of Canada to-day. My

lion, friend laid the whole blame upon the war, but there I disagree with him. Many people who never took part in the war are worse agitators to-day than ever they were. The war has caused some difficulties but not all; it undoubtedly is responsible for some of the present unrest and unsettlement, but not all. But people to-day are disposed to attribute every difficulty to the war, and when anything unpleasant transpires to say, " Oh, it is another result of the war." This is all wrong. There are lots of people who are better off to-day than ever they were before, and are in possession of more of this world's goods than they ever dreamed, of owning. They have money to spend galore, resources which they never expected to have at their command, and still many of these very people are in the ranks of those who complain of unrest. The trouble is more deep-seated than any government is capable of reaching. As a rule, when we have had unrest in this country it has been the result of bad trade and hard times, and the suppression of the working man. None of these conditions exist to-day. Wages are higher, work is more abundant, and there is more of everything at one's hand than ever was the case in the history of this country. You cannot therefore lay the unrest at the door of the Government, on any charge that they have not endeavoured to bring about good times. My hon. friend opposite brought nearly every charge that could be laid against the Government. Now, Mr. Speaker, any legislator who undertakes to use derogatory adjectives in the way in which our hon. friend did ought to live in a very substantial house of his own, but I am afraid that when I examine the deeds of the hon. gentleman somewhat closely, as I intend to do, we shall find that he will not stand up under the glare he is prepared to put this Government under. He has applied to them pretty nearly every epithet he could think of so far as their failures are concerned, and after telling them that they had no head he stultified himself before he resumed his seat by the discovery that they had three heads. Well, it is not so long ago since the Opposition had three heads. I think they are all sitting in the front benches to-day, but two of them unfortunately have been deposed, and I am not sure whether the best man is in the lead or not. They are three excellent men and were all leading the Opposition last session, and we had from the east a triumvirate of wisdom and sagacity that has 74
never been excelled, I think, by any Opposition in the history of this country. It appears, however, that it was found that a despotic control was better than one representative of the people, even to the num ber of three, and therefore the Opposition has reduced its leadership from three to one. It is with the utterances of the nominal leader of the party that I am trying to deal at this moment. The hon. gentleman has moved an amendment to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, in which he seeks an immediate election. Well, I think His Excellency will rather smile when he reads the appendage which my hon. friend seeks to place to the Address. He will probably consult the history of the last two or three elections and see what was done by the hon. gentleman who now asks for an immediate election. I am afraid that if my hon. friend were granted his request to-day he would not be in the clover as he evidently anticipates. No; not by any means. If he is looking for a seat in Ontario, as he did at two previous elections, I am afraid he will fall sadly short of his expectations; for, notwithstanding his severe lambasting of the Government and his indulgence in all the disparaging adjectives which he could marshal against them, he will have to answer a little on his own account, and one of the questions will be this: "Where were you during the war, and what did you do towards the winning of it? " Because there are yet in the communities of Ontario a very respectable portion of people who measure a man's worth by what he did in the war and not by what he said or where he was; and I fear that, measured by that standard, when my hon. friend goes before the people of Canada he will have some very knotty points to clear with regard to himself before he deposes a government which, bad as they may be, and having made as many mistakes as they have made, still gave us a splendid amount of legislation and endeavoured to carry on the war and see that our boys were supported in order that the struggle might finally be won through the assistance of Canada in keeping at the front one of the best fighting units that were seen in Europe during the whole of the war. Some credit is surely due the Government for having thus " carried on." The leader of the Government gave us a list-and it was only a part of it-of what had been done. It was a very magnificent list which he gave to the House only two days ago of the doings of the Government

since they were in power. He might very well, in addition to all the things he enumerated, have told us what we have done in Canada in a trade way in the last year. As he did not do so, I purpose to read just a few words from the Gazette published by Mr. Robert S. White. It is an edition sent out with one of the special numbers giving in concrete form the history of Canada's business for the year 1919. In the light of this article I do not wonder that my friend opposite could not find much reason for criticism:
Business has been excellent in Canada throughout the year 1919. Thera has been an increased:	domestic trade, while foreign
trade has been singularly well maintained, in view of the cessation of munition shipments. The amount of money in circulation is the largest on record, and probably the most convincing evidence of the prosperity of the people is the large increase in savings deposits in the banks, $198,525,000, or about $25 per head of population, plus a Large investment in war bonds. Prices of commodities have remained high, and the cost of living has not been reduced; in fact, some classes of foodstuffs are dearer than ever before. Labour has been unsettled, with numerous strikes in important industries, curtailing production, and usually resulting in higher wages and higher costs of output. The year, however, closed with an improvement in the labour situation, and at the time of writing Canada is comparatively free from strikes. The business mortality was low. Not for many years has the failure list been so light, nor trade so free from losses occasioned ,by bad debts. The stock market has had unwonted activity, with rising prices for many shares, especially those of paper making companies, who have found a ready sale for their product at profitable prices in the United States and have, in addition, derived' a handsome sum from the premium on New York funds.
The crop was a fair one, but by no means bountiful, yet by reason of high prices the money value of the harvest makes a new record, it being placed at $1,452,788,000, against a value of $886,495,000 in 1916. The cost of production has increased in the three years, through higher wages for labour, but there must be a substantial gain in income by farmers who were fortunate enough to reap a good crop. The notable failure was in Southern Alberta and Southern Saskatchewan, due to drought. The number of live stock was slightly increased during the year, except in the case of swine, which show a decrease of about 5% ; but as compared with 1914 the official returns show a large addition to have been made to the herds and flocks of farmers. Despite the unexampled high prices, dairy production dwindled, due possibly in part to mid-summer drought. The export of cheese from Montreal was the lowest in twenty years, being 1,172,460 boxes, while in 1906 It had a dimension of 2,227,838 boxes; and of butter only 79,155 packages were shipped from this port, as against 861,400 packages thirteen years before. What was lost in quantity was, indeed, recovered an value, but the decline in this important branch of agricultural industry is not comforting.
[Mr. Cockshuttl
There you have in concrete form the history of the trade of Canada. The banks show a more marvellous development, if such were possible, in spite of Government borrowings which have been close upon $2,000,000,000 and all from our own people. Canada has been in position to finance herself and her war burdens in a way that she never dreamed of and I question if any other country in the world that was involved in the war has a better trade or financial showing than that which Canada has been able to make. Whatever credit may be due to this Government I am not in a position to say, but I think that some credit should be given to them in this regard. Even the leader of the Opposition, in his very crushing speech, was unable to point out anything that was not to the credit of the Government in so far as trade and financial matters are concerned. There is a good deal more that I might read to advantage but I do not want to trespass upon the time of the House to any great extent. This Government, in addition to all those things I have mentioned, and that were recounted by the right hon. acting Prime Minister, particularly in regard to trade development, should also get the credit for the nationalization of our railways. That question has not been mentioned so far in the debate but it has to do with one of the most gigantic projects considering the small number of people in this country that was ever undertaken in the history of the world. It remains to be seen whether the financial results will justify the expenditure. It was a necessity in any case, but whether we can justify that investment by the returns from the railways remains to be seen. I am optimist enough to believe that the railways of Canada, well managed and with proper rates, on both passengers and freight will, in the end, justify their existence and that not only will we be able to pay our way, but that after all costs and charges have been met a substantial revenue will finally come to the treasury as a result of the management which will be given these railways under a commission or other properly constituted board. I think that in the meantime they are doing very well. Ii anybody questions the kind of service that the National railways are giving, I would ask him to take a ride from Ottawa to Toronto on the new service that has been inaugurated and if he is not satisfied that the Canadian Government is giving a splendid and an expeditious service, he will not have had the same experience as that which I have enjoyed in travelling over the line

two or three times lately between Ottawa and Toronto because I believe the service is of a character unsurpassed on the continent.
The labour situation in Canada has caused a good deal of disturbance during the past year. As my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition is an expert in labour matters, I had thought that he would have propounded something in the nature of an alleviation for the strikes that have existed in Canada and for more or less of the unrest that has been present in the labour market. I believe that labour is more fully employed and better paid to-day than it ever has been in the history of Canada and that there is very little to complain of in point of the hours of work and the remuneration that is given to the working men of Canada for the services rendered. I am not sure but that when normal times come back, as they may come back, we will be able to keep up the high standard of wages that has been set during the past year. Labour, I think, is an important, if not the most important, factor in the population of Canada to-day. There may be those who belong to the U. F. O. who will dispute that statement and say that labour is not equal in numbers, and should not receive the same consideration, as agriculture. I do not exactly remember the relative figures but I believe that there are as many who are called labourers or artizans in one branch of industry or another as there are farmers upon the land, and therefore I view with a good deal of solicitude the course that is being embarked on by certain sections of the people of Canada. At the risk of receiving very severe criticism from some of our agricultural friends, I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that the agrarian movement is a destructive movement for the Dominion of Canada. I believe that in my heart, and believe that those who embark upon it to-day will find it out later. Class legislation in Canada, and class legislation must follow, if an agrarian Government is going to be formed in Canada, as it has been formed in the province of Ontario, can only have one result. We have pulled down one Government in Ontario-I thought it was an excellent Government-and we have put in another. It remains to be seen whether or not we have made a shift for the better or for the worse but for my part, I expect that it is for the worse. I trust I may be deceived. In the first place, we have always thought that population should rule in Canada, but that does not seem to be necessary now. Ontario has a government to-day that represents less than one-third of the popular vote cast in the last election. I have the figures here; I do not know that it is necessary to detain the House by reading them, but you are all familiar with them. There were two other parties in the fight that polled more votes than were polled by the agrarian aggregation in Ontario at the last election, and yet, with the addition of labour, they are in power. I want to give them a fair chance and I hope they will make good but in my humble judgment no class legislation of this kind will finally succeed. I believe that to be a united people we must have all classes represented in the Government. But when I look about I see that only one class is eligible. No speaker is welcomed or permitted, in some cases, on the platform unless he can qualify. I am making an attempt to qualify. They tell me that I am an awfully poor farmer but I do a little bit of farming and I hope that some day I will qualify to go upon the platform with my hon. friends. I will be delighted to address them and I hope they will be pleased to listen to me, especially when they have a chance of coming back as they would be entitled to. I trust that those who now occupy the seats of the mighty at Toronto will loosen up a little bit and remember that while we city people are more or less benighted and dangerous, we are at the same time human beings, that there are quite a number of us, and that we think we are entitled to be heard occasionally even if we are not in power. The Government which has been formed at Toronto consists, I believe, of eleven members, eight of whom represent the U.F.O.,, two labour and one is a lawyer. The important mercantile community, the community of capitalists, if you call them such, the community represented by the great institutions of the country have no voice, nor are they likely to have a voice in the near future, in the legislation that will take place at Toronto. That is only one province and perhaps it will not do us much harm to have the experiment tried out there but I would hesitate before asking that such a course should be pursued in the Dominion. I believe that the people of Canada cannot afford to try the experiment of adopting a policy that will be one sided, because I believe that all our industries and resources, whether in the country or in the city, should be developed by any Government that is at the head of affairs in Canada. I trust that whether this election which our friends opposite would bring on comes soon or late, or whoever may be called to power and entrust-

ed with the duty of legislating for Canada, we will have a Government that gives every class of the people a chance to be heard in the legislative halls and that the right to take part in the consideration of public measures shall not be confined to any one class. The best interests of all concerned would seem to indicate that in the formation of any Government the various elements of our people, both religious and industrial, should be represented in the councils of the nation. That idea has been tried out in the past, it has succeeded, I believe it will succeed in the future and I trust that those who favour some of the experiments which are being made at the present time will not take unkindly to the suggestions I am making.
Because I believe there are many men in the West, and in the East, among the agrarian communiy, who do not care to see this experiment undertaken and who have said so; my sympathies are with thesS men. Therefore we have only to hold an even hand between this class and all the other classes, recognizing that all are greater than any one, that all parties are greater than any one party. But I say this, Mr. Speaker, and I do so, I think, without fear of contradiction, that as bad as the party system may be-failure as it may have proved to be in the past, to some extent-that the party system of Government, call it by what name you please, is better-has proved better and will prove better-than the class system of government. Bad as the party system may be. it embraces all classes in every community; and I for one-and I am considered to be a fairly bigoted old Tory by a good many people-would rather see my friend opposite, to some of whose remarks I have taken exception to-day, come into office representing a united Liberal Party than I would see any class-Capitalists, Manufacturers, whatever you may designate them. I would rather see there my hon. friend at the head of a united Liberal Party that comprised all classes than I would any one particular class with which a person might be pleased to associate himself, because I believe that a party of that kind will give us better administrative results than any class system can give.
Now I have spoken very clearly and plainly upon that point, Mr. Speaker, and I may have spoken perhaps more strongly, my friends may say, than wisely; but the matter has been on my chest for some little time, and I thought the time was opportune to get rid of it; and before our good friend
fMv. Cockshutt]
the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). after the coming general election assumes the Premiership of Canada-which he is said to be aiming at and is likely to obtain, so we are told by many-I wish to advise him as a candid friend in a humble way, that he should not forget the little chaps outside as well.
With regard to the uplift legislation to which reference has been made time and again in this House, while I am a believer in endeavouring to assist people to live good lives by passing laws with that object in view, I have always been instructed and taught that in order to make men good there must be in the individual a right heart and a right conscience impressed with the verities of the Truth of God and of sacred things, and that we must rely more upon the goodness of people's hearts than the strictures of the law to cause them to be good. In that respect I believe that prohibition, good as some people think it is and necessary as it was during the war, has not justified the expectations of its friends. .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: I have supported prohibition myself on more thai>one occasion, but not because I thought it was the best thing to do as an exemplification of Christian duty and Christian charity, but out of deference to the opinions of many of my excellent friends who thought and believed it would work wonders and who promised us that great wonders would result. It is therefore. Mr. Speaker, a matter of disappointment to me that I read, that not only in Canada but practically the world over, a wave of lawbreaking and lawlessness of the most vicious type has been rampant during the past year, the like of which has not been equalled in any previous period. Now I am not laying that at the door of prohibition, and I do not want my hon. friend in my rear who applauds my statement to think that I am going to advocate that we should have the free use of strong drinks. I do not think that would be good for us. I believe in-


Mr. BUTTS:: Did the hon. gentleman notice that under the prohibition law 22,000 cases of Scotch whiskey were landed in Halifax from one of the large liners, the name of which I do not at present recall?


Mr. OOPP:: What became of it?


William Foster Cockshutt: I understood that that ship had gone down and had never reached port.


Robert Hamilton Butts: No, sir.


An hon. MEMBER:: That whiskey went ashore at Cape Breton.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not wish to
discourage any of our friends in the House 'who believe in legislation of that kincl-


Robert Hamilton Butts: Or importations.


William Foster Cockshutt: -but I want to impress upon this House that in my judgment if the citizens of Canada are to be as good as we want them to be, adherence to the truth I endeavoured to lay before you in the early part of my address is a very much better, safer and surer road to follow than to enact any compulsory legislation that strives in itself to make a man good when his heart is wrong and he is swearing all the time at being compelled to do a thing he would not do if he followed his own inclination. I do not believe in legislation of that kind. I follow' a Church and a bishop whose doctrines I believe are in close unison and- in conformity with the stand I have now taken. I draw that inference because at a recent gathering the distinguished ecclesiastic in question said we must rely more upon scriptural truths and upon the law of God and the converting power of the salvation of His Son than we must in legislation, enacted sometimes by a majority and some times by a minority, to force people to go in opposition to their will and inclination. The result is, I think, baneful to the law and bad for our owrn faith; it is a case of trusting in our own works to do what the Divine Law alone can do. I put in the same category all these kinds of legislation that seek to force good down a man's throat. I believe in the efficiency of moral suasion and of right doctrines and right beliefs to influence a man, rather than forcing him to be good by legislation.
Perhaps I have said too much in that regard. I now want to commend this Government for some things it has done. I think that the right hon. gentleman who at present leads the House has enumerated enough to show that this Government has done more in great acts of legislation of a far-reaching character than any Canadian Government has done in a like period. It must be remembered that this Government is but a little over two years old, and the recounting of its acts would take a long time. Much of its legislation has been very far-reaching, and much of it has involved hundreds, almost thousands of millions of dollars, and I believe that the future will justify the formation of this legislation.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is your opinion.


William Foster Cockshutt: Whether it will be a continuity or not I do not know; it will have to brace up if it is going to carry the country, there is no doubt about that,


Arthur Bliss Copp: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: We on this side will have to get out and talk to the people, because I notice that our friends of the other aggregations are about in the country, and we cannot expect Union principles to flourish while we sit silent in the House of Commons here and allow the other fellows to do all the talking and all the preaching and take all the encomiums for everything that has been done and make the charge that the Government was unwilling to do anything-that it would not have done, what it has done if it had not been forced.
Whether that is the case or not, the Government has so far justified its existence. I agree with the member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) in this respect-I shall not discuss the subject now, as I hope to do so on a later occasion-that the economic question will be the next issue upon which the people of this country will be divided at the polls. Whether the member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan) is justified in believing that Quebec will be just as solid against some other parts of Canada as it was in the last election, I do not know'. It could scarcely be more so than it was at the last election, because on that occasion only three members who sit on this side were elected from the province of Quebec.
I believe that Quebec has considerable light on some questions, and of these the trade question is one. I am sorry that the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is not in his seat, for I should like to ask him whether his removal from Kamouraska to the manufacturing district of Eastern Quebec has had any effect upon his free trade notions. I miss my guess if his views on free trade and protection are not somewhat modified in the near future when they are applied to the good old city of Quebec. Quebec is a manufacturing centre, and Quebec w'ill have something to say about the fiscal question if that is the issue at the next election. And if it is, I for one am quite ready for the fray. On many occasions the people of Canada have expressed a decided opinion upon that question, and if it is put before them again they will give the same answer. I therefore advise the leader of the Opposition to withdraw his amendment and to think it over for a year. If it should

carry and he were sent before the people tomorrow, he would be a disappointed man, because he is not as ready as he thinks he is to face the electorate. I do not wish him any harm so far as his resolution is concerned, but it would be a pity to see him make a failure of his first enterprise in the splendid surroundings of the new Parliament building. I advise him, therefore, to withdraw the amendment; if he does not, it will be ruthlessly slaughtered by the House when the vote is taken upon it.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (translation) :: Mr. Speaker, it is my good luck to have my turn to speak after the honourable member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), for it affords me the opportunity to reply to the question which he had the impertinence to put to the hon. leader of the Opposition, when he asked him what he had done during the war. I hold no brief to defend my leader, as he can well do it himself, but I am anxious to give the member for Brantford the following answerDuring the war, the hon. leader of the Opposition, most conversant with labour questions, was settling some strikes of miners in the United States and was thus working towards bringing closer together employees and employers, thereby enabling munition plants to give their maximum output. The result obtained by the hon. leader of the Opposition, everybody will admit, was a most valuable assistance to the Allies.
But to you, the hon. member for Brantford, might I be allowed to put the same question? What were you doing during the war? You were here in this House and you were supporting, by your vote, all those who were thriving on the sufferings of the people, and permitting certain companies to realize scandalous profits of from 100 to 200 per cent, and you were yourself increasing the prices of agricultural implements of your own manufacture. Such is your patriotism.
I now wish to congratulate the hon. members who have moved and seconded the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. They had to put forth a good deal of willingness and, above all, a lot of imagination in order to find means to praise the present Government, during half an hour respectively, and from that point of view, I do offer them my congratulations.
Every citizen in Canada was eagerly expecting the opening of Parliament. Every one hoped that the Government would at last declare in the speech from the Throne a well defined and settled policy which

would enable the country to emerge from the chaos which the war had wrought, and make it enter upon the road to progress and promotion.
Empty delusion and empty expectation, Mr. Speaker, for this speech gives us no information. Yet, the hon. ministers have repeatedly told us of a reconstruction programme, of an after-war programme which would regenerate the country. What is then the reason of this predicament? It is because the Government have of union but the name; the ministers are at variance and cannot agree upon a programme. The Tory group wants to continue the policy of protection which brings wealth to one class only, whilst the so-called Liberal group is in favour of lowering the tariff, and so, in order to keep themselves in power and avoid appealing to the people, neither group imposes its opinions and the country goes on aimlessly. Those among the ministers who have preserved the sense of Liberalism and who do not want to become hopelessly ruined in the public opinion resign one after another, and the Prime Minister, unable to meet the situation, puts himself on the sick list and travels through unknown lands in order to recuperate.
Mr. Speaker, we have a debt of two billions, we are overburdened with taxes of all kinds, the cost of living is ever increasing, the people are in the power of the Trusts, and meanwhile the Government remain inactive and do nothing to improve the conditions. We are being told again every day that the remedy can be found in economy and overproduction. Economy, Mr. Speaker. Does the Government practise it? Far from it. Every day large amounts are uselessly spent, the ministers launch us into hazardous ventures, such as the purchase of the Canadian Northern, of the Grand Trunk and of the Grand Trunk Pacific; the militia expenses are doubled, fabulous amounts have been spent during the war in order to favour political friends, and now the hon. Minister of Marine informs us of the construction of a navy, after Lord Jellicoe's inspiration, which will imply an expenditure of several million dollars.
Sir, do you not think it would be more in keeping with patriotism to expend those millions towards developing the country, building railroads or building the Georgian Bay canal, a work required for such a long time and which would help developing and enriching the country to such a great extent? Now, what is the Government

doing to encourage overproduction while they so strongly recommend the people to overproduce? Should they not begin by helping the producers? The farmers must be helped,, we must give them the means to produce at low cost by doing away with the duty on all implements required for farming purposes. Sir, I cannot believe that the farmer is obliged to pay one hundred and fifty dollars for a binder which he could secure for seventy-five dollars were the duty abolished. He is forced to enrich the manufacturer, and the consumer is bound to pay a much larger price for the goods which he needs.
Last year, the Government, yielding to public opinion, decided to appoint a certain commission called Board of Commerce. That board was to preclude the manufacturers and the big companies from overcharging the consumer, to preclude them from realizing big profits. But this was a mere allurement, the monopolists and the trusts kept forestalling all the products and piling them up in the warehouses so as to increase the prices, and the chairman of that board has just handed the Government his resignation out of disgust, saying that the law was ineffective and his hands were tied up by political influences. That is, Sir, what the Government has done to reduce the cost of living.
It is said, in the speech from the Throne, that a new Franchise Act will be brought down. I am glad of it. I am delighted to hear that the iniquitous War-time Elections Act will be struck off our statute book forever. I ask the Government to give us a Franchise Act fair and just and allowing the people to speak out freely. Let everybody be enfranchised. In a democratic country as Canada is, every citizen, whether rich or poor, whether big or small, should have the right to say what he thinks of the public men and of the political questions. The right to vote is a sacred advantage which should be enjoyed by the workingman and by the manufacturer alike, by the mechanic as well as by the farmer. Though wishing to make no prediction, 1 feel assured that if we are given a Franchise Act in keeping with ever so little honesty, of those who are now sitting to our right, Sir, not excepting even the honourable ministers, very few will come back to Parliament after the next general election.
I see it is also proposed to amend the law with respect to labour. That is most serious at this moment, Mr. Speaker. You are fully aware of all the uneasiness which
now prevails between capital and labour, of all the strikes which have taken place throughout the country. As I have said it in this House on a previous occasion, as a matter of principle, I am not in favour of strikes,, but I think that the workingmen are not entirely wrong, they suffered from the war to a greater extent than any other class, and now that the war is over, they suffer from the high cost of living to a greater extent than any other class also; and while they are toiling and enduring all kinds of hardships, the Government allows the manufacturers and the millionaires to double the amount of their fortunes. Is there, in this country, a single citizen who will claim that the workingman was properly treated by the Government? Let us better his position, let us secure for him better protection against accidents and in case he is out of work; in fine, iSi.r, let us grant him an old age pension. While not wishing in any way to worry the House, I would again repeat my request: It is my earnest belief that when a workingman has kept toiling all his life and, in many cases for a salary which was inadequate, to enrich his employer, who decides to dispense with his services when he has become old and incapacitated, should be protected by the State to the extent of being relieved of the alternative of remaining a burden to his children or of being obliged to take the road to the hospital. I know that this request of mine will not be favourably considered, for the Government is now dismissing humdrreds of employees at the Printing Bureau, under the pretence that they are too old. Such a course is shameful and I protest against such dismissals of old servants.
Mr. Speaker, I have fully appreciated the sympathetic remarks made by the Acting Prime Minister about the French Canadians, the other day; we have been so little accustomed to such flattering compliments, for a few years past especially, that we cannot believe what we hear. Though believing the hon. minister to be in good faith, I may tell him that it will take more than words to make us forget the abuse and the sufferings which we had to endure. He must give us our full share of representation in the Government, the commissions and all public appointments.
Of late years, this Government's policy has favoured the complete exclusion of French Canadians from public service. Today, you praise the the province of Quebec; you find that our citizens are peaceful and

clear-sighted. It is a fact Mr. Speaker. The best indication in this connection is the peace and tranquility which have prevailed in our province since the war is ended, while unrest and strikes are rampant in all the other provinces of the Dominion. What is the reason for this, Mr. Speaker? It is because my fellow-countrymen are imbued with the spirit of Catholicism and accept the guidance of the Catholic Church which teaches the people to respect and obey all laws.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Government and all the bon. members to support the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the Opposition asking for an immediate election. A few days ago, I heard the Acting Prime Minister state here that the members of the Opposition were not in earnest and would find themselves in a sad plight if the writs were issued for a general election. Well, then why not accept our challenge, Mr. Minister? Dissolve Parliament and let us go before the electorate. For my part, I am confident of what the outcome will be. I remember that in 1896, the country was getting through a period of depression pretty similar to the one whose effects are being felt to-day. The Canadian people turned their eyes towards the Liberal party then under the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. There followed a period of fifteen years of wise and progressive administration. Today as in 1896, the people of Canada turn their eyes toward the Liberal party which is under the direction of a new leader, young and talented, in whom we have placed all our hopes and who will also be able to give to this country of ours a prudent and progressive government.


Mr. FRED LANGDON DAVIS (Neepawa):: gain the support of the members of the Cabinet, he will let them have their way. If he is a weak man he will let them have their way, perhaps for more ignoble reasons. The consequence is that Parliament is the one and only means of effectively controlling expenditure. That brings me to a consideration of the method of voting estimates. There is not a member of this House, I am sure, who has not felt the futility of our method. When the estimates are submitted to Parliament some member, on the Opposition side generally, and once in a while, under present circumstances, a member on this side of the House arises and makes a few remarks perhaps about some steamboat that has been taken off its usual course, or wants to know why some clerk has been dismissed. Sometimes these matters take up three or four hours, and finally the estimates go through in bulk, because that has been the practice for the last thirty or forty or fifty years. That is the degree of attention that Parliament gives the estimates. No man can possibly make himself familiar with all the estimates; indeed, it is pretty nearly a life work to make oneself familiar enough with one department to discuss its estimates effectively. How can we remedy this? Let us see what the Mother of Parliaments has done in order to get control over expenditures. In 1912 the British House appointed a committee on estimates. It acted through one session, and it was found that it could deal during the session with practically only one department. It was an ordinary committee of the House, without any clerical assistance, and had to do all its work within the session, and it was going to take thirty or forty years to scrutinize all the estimates. It could not get the necessary information on all the estimates and make a report in time for the House to deal with them that session, and consequently, when the war came, that committee was dropped. The next time you come across a reference to it is in the seventh and ninth report of the 8elect Committee on National Expenditure of 1917, of which the Hon. Herbert Samuel was chairman. The whole question was dealt with by that committee, and better means were devised for controlling the expenditure, which means I commend to the consideration of this House. The Committee, it was proposed, should have an officer known as The Examiner of Estimates," as well as a clerical staff acting under the direction of the committee. The committee was composed of thirty members, I believe, divided 
into two sections, one section dealing with the main estimates, and the other with estimates for new undertakings, or what we would call subliminary estimates. There were two recommendations which must be considered if the project is to be successful. One of these is that the estimates as published should be more significant and that their allocation should be by objects rathrr than by subjects. The other recommendation was that a vote for reducing an estimate should not be regarded as'a want of confidence motion. If it is made a want of confidence motion, the judgment of the House is no longer economic, but political. The Government supporters are not going to turn out the Government because they differ with them on the expenditure of $10.000 or $50,000 or $100,000. There may be cases where the Government would be justified in asking their supporters to pass a particular estimate, but in the main a motion to reduce an estimate should not ia regarded as a want of confidence motion. I commend to the House the serious study of that means of retrenchment. It is the only one that will furnish the House with the machinery whereby we can attain the retrenchment that is going to be necessary in the immediate months. I should like to see this House appoint a committee on estimates this year. At the very least, I would ask that a committee be appointed to consider the matter and leport to the House. One or two things have struck me in considering this matter. I think the House has been rather slack of recent years in its understanding of financial principles. Certain Bills have been passed providing for an expenditure of money over a series of years. For instance, the Highways Bill provides for an annual grant for the next five or ten years. The same is true with regard to The Agricultural Aid and Technical Education Grants. Now that system practically takes out of Parliament's hands the control over expenditure. It is a wrong principle, and the instance serves to demonstrate the need for more attention and greater care by this House in the passing of financial measures. We have got away from the old ideas which have brought us to where we stand to-day, the fear of the encroachment of autocracy, the fear, perhaps, even of an aristocracy. We are fully democratic today, but still we sometimes forget the sound principles which we worked out in conflict, and I take it, that is true in this particular case.

There are other matters in this connection which I think require the attention of the House. I cannot see, for instance, why in the present condition of exchange our Customs Department should not enter imported goods from the United States and England at their Canadian value instead of at the United States or English value. I understand that what our Customs Department is doing to-day is this: You buy, we will suppose, $1,170 of goods in the United States. Owing to the rate of exchange, these goods are valued in the United States at $1,000, and they are entered by our Customs Department at $1,000, and on that the customs tax is levied. On the other hand, when you buy $700 of goods from Great Britain, you get $972 worth of goods in sterling. When the goods enter this country they are valued at $972, and the consequence is that our British preference is wiped out by our application of the customs tax. The application is wrong, because when the exchange is running in our favour, as it is with Great Britain, it encouiages exports to us from Britain, and when it is running against us, as it is with the United States, it discourages exports to us from the United States.
How far has the principle of protection been applied in this matter to decide the way in which we should treat the money value of the goods? I take it that this is a matter about which the people of Canada are very greatly concerned. It is contrary to sound principle that we should take the goods at other than our own value. If a man can buy $970 worth of goods in Great Britain for $700, he should have the advantage of his purchase, and I do not think the manufacturers of Canada have any right to say that he should not. I fear, therefore, that on that question our Government has made a concession which is a betrayal of principal. We should also give some attention to the Excess Profits Tax. The fact that a man may take out of 1919 earnings the tax he paid in 1918 is surely one way of adding his taxes to the cost of doing business. It enables him to escape taxation and tranfer the burden to the consumers. I have a very grave doubt as to the soundness of the principle of our Excess Profits Tax, nevertheless, while it is in operation it should be properly applied. I mention the matter now, however, by way of criticism. It seems to me that the Opposition are not the people who have been criticising the Government. Rather it has been the friends of the Government, as far as I have
observed since I have been in the House. It seems to me that the matters of practical import and great consequence are suggested by the friends of the Government, -things that should really be done. A good deal of nonsense is talked about politics and the struggle between Ontario and Quebec, and I think we had better relegate to the region of oblivion all questions of the past. They are dead; and as we are faced with present problems which are serious enough I think more of us should get in on the Forward Movement and look to the future.
I should like to say a few words in regard to the question of co-operation. I observe that Judge Robson in his report the other day said that incidentally, and I am sure by oversight, there was in the Combines and Fair Prices Act an obstruction upon the principle of co-operation, and that it was not allowed scope for development. I believe that consumers' co-operation, and growing out of that, probably, producers' co-operation, will prove to be one of the solutions of our present industrial difficulties. There is no doubt that consumers' cooperation will be a regulator of prices as it has been in Great Britain. At present we have nothing but the industrial system and the production of goods for profit. Much criticism has been levelled at the doctrine that business should be carried on for use and not for profit. I have seen but one place where there has been a really practical application of that principle, and that is in connection with the co-operative movement in Great Britain. There profits are distributed in accordance with the amount of purchases, and prices are governed. Out of the retail societies, of which there are nearly fourteen hundred, wholesale cooperatives have been formed and these have started factories, which produce goods only for the use of the retail dealers who are their customers, and are co-operators with them. The fact that you have a large part of industry carried on under co-operation is more or less an index of needs to the remainder of the trade, and it is undoubtedly a governing influence as to prices and what are fair profits and fair dividends. The man who becomes a co-operator very soon comes to understand the use and value of investments. He has an interest in the present system, and is not apt to become a socialist or communist. He has property and understands its value and knows how it can be made to improve his position. In this House the late Mr. Monk, I understand, in 1907 endeavoured unsuccessfully to have enacted a Bill permitting the formation of
no

co-operative societies. I happened to be on the Cost of Living Committee last year, and we came face to face with the fact that the trade of Canada has its face set like adamant against co-operation. From the manufacturer down to the retail dealer there is no use for co-operation, and this House must therefore open the way by proper legislation for the formation of co-operative societies, and give them the opportunity they enjoy in Great Britain. To illustrate what is being done in Great Britain, I may say that the customers number ten millions of people, and there is a membership of two and a half millions. When recently, in connection with the establishment of a Board of Commerce similar to our own, the President of the Board of Trade was about to make appointments, he chose first a chairman, who from a slate, which was prepared by the President of the Board of Trade, selected from amongst the cooperators and trades unions, the men who should be associated with him on the board. Now, what greater recognition could there be of the sound democratic and public-service position to which co-operation had attained in Great Britain than that recognition by the Government of the United Kingdom?


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks on the Address, I desire at the outset to discharge the pleasant duty of paying tribute to the mover and seconder for the splendid way in which they acquitted themselves in their task. Their speeches were unquestionably excellent examples of oratory, and the sentiments which they expressed were on the whole admirable. I trust that we shall have many sifch academic treats as those with which we were favoured on that occasion. I congratulate the seconder of the Address, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McGregor), whose debut in this House certainly must commend him to the attention of his electors as well as of his province and the Dominion. As a business man might be expected to do, he gave a practical address, submitting figures which gave food for thought. I am sure that his electors have been reading his speech with delight.
It had been my intention also a few moments ago when I decided to address this House to extend some congratulations, which I believed were well deserved, to my right hon. friend the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster). My intention was to have given him my due and sincere eon-

gratulations upon the most eloquent speech that he delivered on the day of the opening of the House in the language of Racine, Boileau and Fenelon. His remarks were such as to commend them to the attention of every one who speaks the French language and who appreciates the nobility and beauty of that tongue. I was aware, as were others, that the right hon. gentleman could write the language with correctness and could use it when circumstances required that he should do so, but I was surprised and delighted with the facility with which he expressed himself on that occasion in language which was not a mere translation of English expressions but language which a Frenchman would have used had he been speaking under similar circumstances. I wish to congratulate him not only upon his ability to speak the French language with facility and lucidity but also because he has given an example to the whole of Canada that the French language is one of the dual languages of Confederation and which had the same official recognition as English throughout the Dominion. A few days ago in the city of Ottawa the Educational Conference declared that the French language was necessary in the future not only for the happiness and intellectual enjoyment of the people of Canada, but for the advancement of economic and social conditions. It was my good fortune four or five years ago to tell my compatriots in the city of Ottawa that under the British flag the French language was bound to get recognition and that in a few years that language would be on an equal footing with the languages of other countries. I see that to-day there is a tendency to give full justice to the French language in Canada, as it is being recognized that a wider knowledge of that language must contribute to the greater felicity and prosperity of the Canadian people. I hope my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) will kindly convey my remarks and congratulations to his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I have, in the exercise of my duty, given due credit to the right hon. the Acting Prime Minister, I deem it also my duty to call his attention to another subject upon which I am not able to felicitate or congratulate him; that is the absence of a Cabinet minister representing the province of New Brunswick for the last ten or eleven months, and, indeed, the absence of a Cabinet representative from all of the eastern provinces, including Nova Scotia. We see that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), who

represents that province, is not able to discharge the duties of his office. Personally, I need not say that if my good wishes' could restore the Prime Minister to health he would certainly come back full of vigour to resume his official duties. But the eastern provinces have no .representative in the Government-those eastern provinces which have been the backbone of Confederation, without which there could have been no Confederation-and it is the duty of the Government not to prolong such a state of affairs. We are told, and we can see, that the only reason why the Maritime Provinces are unrepresented is that if there were a byelection in New Brunswick the people would not be found to be very favourable to the Government. We cannot wait, until a new census is taken, as the Iron, member for Neepawa (Mr. Davis) has suggested, to have representation in the Government from the province of New Brunswick. If for that reason a by-election would not be agreeable, then, I say, let us have a general election. When the Liberal party come back to power we will be able to have by-elections and we will have representatives from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and the French elements of the province of Quebec. That was the main reason why I rose to-day to give my support to the amendment brought in by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Air. Mackenzie King). In a speech which will long remain in the memory when it has been read, pondered and cogitated over by the people of Canada, the leader of the Opposition claimed that it was time for an election, that the Government were not here representing the aspirations of the people of Canada, were not here fulfilling the promises that were made to the people, and were not here for the purpose for which they had been elected. They were placed here as a Union Government for the duration of the war, but now that the war was over the people should be permitted, in the exercise of their right, to select another Government which would be representative of the opinion of the people as it would find expression to-day.
My" hon. friend from Neepawa has said that a census will be taken in two or three years and that we must wait until the census is taken in order to give the West the representation to which it will have a right at that time. No one has more consideration for the constitution of Canada than I. At the same time, speaking more particularly as I do for the eastern provinces and for the farming interest, the basic industry
of Canada, which is waiting to-day for some relief and some encouragement in its work, which has been clamouring for the last two or three years for a reduction of the tariff, more particularly on food products and the material necessary for carrying on its operations, I assert that the time has come to again consult the people of Canada. Having voted for our amendment last year, are these hon. gentlemen, among whom was the hon. member for Neepawa, going to say to-day: "We are willing to allow the Government to stand by the high protectionist tariff; we will put away our principles and our aspirations and wait for two or three years until the Government has taken the census and provided for a redistribution of seats in this country?"
If the policy of reciprocity for -which the West voted almost unanimously-a policy under which the farmers' wheat and other cereals and live stock would have found a ready market in the United States, and -which would have resulted in great prosperity in Canada as a whole-had been adopted in 1911 would it not have prevented much of the unrest wdiieh exists throughout the country to-day? Had' that policy, which was so generally approved by the farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and a good part of Manitoba, gone into effect should we have seen as we do to-day the farmers of the West organizing in the manner in which they are in order to secure the passage of legislation better calculated to advance their interests? I must say that I sympathize with the movement because I have been for many years in my own constituency, closely identified with the great industry of agriculture to say nothing of the sister industry of fishing, and I have been very loyally supported for the past twenty years by the farmers and fishermen there. I am confident that they are prepared to continue that support for a like period of time because they know how warmly I am devoted to their interests. Why wait for two or three years until we have' another census and a re-distribution of seats when that means the continuance of the policy of protection and the perpetuation of the existing dissatisfaction? Does my hon. friend from Neepawa under the existing circumstances expect to see any immediate reduction of the tariff, is he hopeful of securing free trade to the extent that is practicable, in view of the recent pronouncements of members of the Government, especially the deliverance of my intellectual and genial friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen)? In my opin-

ion the farmers will not see any free-trade policy adopted or very much in the way of reduction of the tariff or of taxation. We are told that the maintenance of a tariff is necessary in order to meet our yearly ordinary expenditures of some $150,000,000, the $35,000,000 to $40,000,000 of pensions to our soldiers, and other obligations. We are told that we must depend upon the tariff to meet obligations which would seem fabulous were it not that the public mind since the war has grown accustomed to think in millions. But the tariff is not the only source of revenue. The taxation of land values has been strongly urged and my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has been one of its strongest advocates. If the taxation of land values is a good policy to pursue it should have been adopted long before this. But even now why not put it into operation and thus raise the augmented revenues we so greatly need for our public demands? If I recollect aright the hon. gentleman (Mr. *Crerar) speaking to this House last year estimated that a revenue of seventy-five or eighty million dollars could be derived from the -taxation of land values. Why refrain from having recourse to this tax, especially at this time when the farmers are straining every effort to meet their necessities under the present high cost of living and the high rate of farm labour?
When we ask for an appeal to the people we are told to wait until there is another census and until there has been a re-distribution of seats. It is frequently stated, and some hon. gentlemen opposite as well as the newspapers supporting them take pleasure in repeating the statement, that the Liberals are not sincere in asking for a general election. Well, Mr. Speaker, you have known me for some years and you will admit that I do not make a statement which I do not believe or give expression to a hope which I do not sincerely entertain. I am of the opinion that the time has come when the Government, oi its own volition, should appeal to the country. If the present Government should be returned well and good, but the people will not be satisfied until they have had an opportunity of expressing their will at the polls, because it cannot be denied that under the conditions which prevail this Government is not a constitutional Government.
The present state of exchange between Canada and the United States, in my opinion, is iesponsible for a great deal of dissatisfaction in the public mind. For this

condition a great many people blame the United States but does the responsibility rest with that country? Undoubtedly that exchange rate is a matter for concern. It has been urged that the Minister of Finance, (Sir Henry Drayton) for whose financial and legal ability I have the greatest respect, should take steps to secure relief. I do not altogether agree with what has so far been done in that direction. We have been told that we should buy less from the United States and produce more, but in my opinion had the Liberal trade policy of 1911 been carried into effect we should have seen to-day a greater equilibrium in the figures of trade with our neighbours to the south, our exports would have been more on a parity with our imports from that country and eminent financiers of the United States would have had a more exalted opinion of our currency. Gold is the basis of currency in the United States, whereas we might say that Canadian currency is on a paper basis. As a remedial measure our Minister of Finance recently exported some $40,000,000 in gold to the United States. To my mind it would have been much better to have stored that gold in the vaults of Canada and issued against it a proportional amount of paper currency redeemable in gold. Had these measures, which I have urged, been followed I believe that to-day our currency would have-been on a basis equally as satisfactory as that of the United States. I suggest that as much gold as can be got together be put in the vaults of Canada in order that the value of our paper currency may be increased and put on an equal footing with that of United States.
When we vote for the amendment which has been submitted by the leader of the Opposition we do so in the hope that the members of the Government will be led to carry out the constitutional duties involving upon them; that they will pass a Franchise Act which is in accordance with the British practice and the British spirit, giving every Canadian who is entitled to vote the right to the franchise, and then go before the people.
It has been said by some hon. gentleman that party government no longer exists in Canada. The member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) suggested yesterday that if hon. gentlemen opposite who were supporting the Union Government should make themselves a party, they would keep themselves in power. But whatever may be done in that respect I hope that when the Minister of Finance brings down his Budget there

will be found in it some departure from the old ways of the Tory administration, from the old practice of keeping to the same source of revenue-Tariff, and more tariff.
I believe that hon. gentlemen who are supporting the cause of the farmers in this House are in sympathy with our programme. The programme of the farmers and the programme of the Liberal party are, in a sense, but one; there is no considerable difference between them. Whatever is embodied in either may easily be embodied in the other without any great violation of principle.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton):: In the event of an election taking place immediately without redistribution, how long will the farmers of the West have to wait before the Government which my hon. friend boasts would come into power would bring about a redistribution of the representation in Parliament?


Mr.   TLJRGBON@: It has been the practice of the Liberal party-particularly was it so during the leadership of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier-to appeal to the people at frequent intervals. In order to give the country the benefit of the reciprocity agreement of 1911-


Henry Arthur Mackie: Will the hon. gen-* tleman permit me? I put a question to him.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Let him finish his answer.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I was proceeding to answer my hon. friend; if he is in a hurry I will speak as rapidly as I can. I was saying that when questions of vital interest to the people have been at issue the Liberal party has always been willing, even after so short a period as a year or six months in office, again to go before the country and submit their policies to the people. In 1911, three years after an election had been held, the then Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when the reciprocity agreement was brought forward and objection was made to it by the Opposition, might quite properly have let the agreement stand and remained in power for another two years. But in the interests of the people he immediately dissolved Parliament and went to the country. That principle will always be followed by the Liberal party; we are always ready to appeal to the people whenever occasion requires. It is only members on the other side who are talking about prolonging the present Parliament.
We would be well advised, therefore, to persuade the members of the Government 8
that they are certainly holding a false position. The purpose for which the Government was elected has been fulfilled, and they should now appeal to the people. The ministers might not all be defeated, but certainly there will be a great change after the next election, in Ontario as well as throughout the West. The farmers all over the country are agitating for a change, and whoever may make up the new Government I am willing to accept the verdict of the people. The desire of the Liberal party is not so much to attain power as to uphold the principles which it endorses and which it wishes to be enjoyed by the people of Canada. Our object is to promote the in-ierests of the Canadian people; whether we do that in Opposition or otherwise is not the most important matter. In the past the Liberal party have done great things for Canada, not only by preventing the adoption of measures which would not have been good for our country, but also by assisting in the enactment of legislation which, but for our labours, might not have been so beneficial.
I hope that the Government will bring down a Franchise Act which will give the franchise to every Canadian, every British subject in this country who has a vote, whatever his political views may be. The people have been asking for a proper Franchise Act ever since the last election-an election which certainly was no credit to the party which obtained the majority of the votes; an election in which neither the civilian population nor the soldiers were allowed to enjoy the full privileges of the franchise.
Therefore, with all this unrest in the minds of the people, the Government should hasten to bring down a fair and equitable Franchise Act, and also to bring down whatever appropriations may be required for carrying on the affairs of the country. Then let them appeal to the people, and if it be the will of the people to return them to power, we are prepared to abide by the result, although I do not believe that they will be returned to power. We want a just franchise with the British spirit in it. We want it to be just for everybody, for the man of the West as well as for the man of the East; we want it to be just for the man who came here ten, fifteen or twenty years ago under the promise of receiving the advantages of British freedom and British institutions, for the maintenance and preservation of which in Canada as in other parts of the British Empire our sons have fought and died. British principles and institutions form a large part



of our constitution. Therefore, let the franchise be in accordance with those principles, and more particularly in accordance with those sentiments which are conveyed in the term "British spirit," which means freedom in every possible way and justice to all. I trust that the Government will see fit to give us such a franchise.
On motion of Mr. H. P. Whidden (Brandon), the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 4, 1920.